I'm not thinking on buying a full-frame camera, but sure it would attract new users to the Pentax brand

No one should be content with the 645Z, because it isn't a FF. Until someone comes out with a digital 8x10, and Pentax has at least a 67D (or Z) FF I'll never be satisfied! None of this puny, cropped sensor stuff!

---------- Post added 04-02-14 at 06:41 PM ----------

Originally posted by Uluru

You are right.
But also, that does not mean we should not analyse the behaviour and resulting approach of the company and its management when it comes to matters we are interested in. So far it seems Pentax brand and its management are big on show and building on anticipation in matters that are of little overall importance to its core users.
Therefore "bad father, poor child" analogy.

But how can they rush? A FF camera would be the biggest Pentax announcement in the digital age, or so it seems. Ricoh had to start from absolute zero. With the 645Z they just modify a 645D camera that had been designed years ago, before it was shelved. The stakes are not high - a "failure" of the 645Z can do little to hurt Pentax' image, while a success can only help it. Part of this is because Pentax has NO direct competition in the MF space. And if Sony does release a unique MF camera, as has been rumored, I think it will help legitimize the 'Prosumer' MF space, which, oddly enough, will only make Pentax look more professional for having a digital 645 system with a long heritage. And Pentax' success will be Sony's success, since they make the sensors. It's the survival of Phase One and Hasselblad that I'm most worried about - they both have some great cameras and lenses, but they're expensive, and yet they're all using the same significantly cropped sensor now.

But in the case of a 35mm format FF camera, the stakes are high. Ricoh had to start at absolute zero in their design. Any older FF prototypes that may have existed when they took over would be obsolete by launch time, and it'd fall harder than a Nikon Df in people's minds. And what a challenge! A smaller company that must design a product that will in some ways exceed newer products that Canon and Nikon haven't even released yet!

But how can they rush? A FF camera would be the biggest Pentax announcement in the digital age, or so it seems. Ricoh had to start from absolute zero.

The k-mount is a 135 (FF) mount, so Ricoh isn;t rally starting technically from nothing. The bugbear isn'e the FF tech. It's the price point and the ability to design, make, and sell enough lenses to be viable against Canon and Nikon.

Pentax most certainly has MF competition from Mamiya/Phase One, Hasselbald, and Leica. The company that comes out with the Mamiya 6 or 7 digital will be on to something. The Leica S series is not that kind of camera. All of these brands use hand assembly on small production runs and get a decent $ return from there pro support systems. Alpa is also there, proving that a very small manufacturer can make a go of it in this boutique area, even digitally. The real problem is ramping up production and lens arrays for FF. For the Pentax 645Z, not so much of an issue.

What sense is to make camera that it is more than 3 times heavier, 4 times bigger and has only 1,3 bigger senzor than FF camera (Sony a7). Ricoh lets make this camera mirrorless, that is only thing that can change this camera into something special and interesting.

The k-mount is a 135 (FF) mount, so Ricoh isn;t rally starting technically from nothing. The bugbear isn'e the FF tech. It's the price point and the ability to design, make, and sell enough lenses to be viable against Canon and Nikon.

Pentax most certainly has MF competition from Mamiya/Phase One, Hasselbald, and Leica. The company that comes out with the Mamiya 6 or 7 digital will be on to something. The Leica S series is not that kind of camera. All of these brands use hand assembly on small production runs and get a decent $ return from there pro support systems. Alpa is also there, proving that a very small manufacturer can make a go of it in this boutique area, even digitally. The real problem is ramping up production and lens arrays for FF. For the Pentax 645Z, not so much of an issue.

The K-mount is a given, as is a shutter button on the right hand side, and some sort of grip. But pretty much everything else is up for grabs. We don't even know if it'll have a mirror.

I can tell you the Phase One guys don't consider Pentax to be their competition - at least not that they'll admit. The Pentax 645D is in a completely different price range. Pentax can't really compete with the IQ160 or IQ180 backs either. Phase One also has the whole studio tethering setup down, with arguably the industry's best raw processing software (which supports Pentax, but conspicuously not the 645D), and a good reputation with high-end photographers that's spanned a number of generations. OTOH, Hasselblad has a reputation for outstanding lenses and better bodies than Phase One (but not better sensors), so they don't seem to feel the heat from below either - at least, not yet. And Leica doesn't really compete with anyone.

I think Pentax has to step up their game to compete with Phase One and Hasselblad, and they may intend to do so with the 645Z - or they may intend to simply stay in their own market, or create a new one by innovating in a different direction.

---------- Post added 04-02-14 at 10:21 PM ----------

Originally posted by dfujevec

What sense is to make camera that it is more than 3 times heavier, 4 times bigger and has only 1,3 bigger senzor than FF camera (Sony a7). Ricoh lets make this camera mirrorless, that is only thing that can change this camera into something special and interesting.

First of all, the sensor's about 1.7 times bigger. And the lenses are bigger. And these bigger lenses are delivering an image to a bigger sensor, which avoids many of the optical problems or performance penalties that a smaller system suffers from. This increase is almost as much as the increase in going from APS-C to 35mm FF, which some people seem to think is the most amazing upgrade ever. And that upgrade requires using the same, smaller lenses. As a system, the price per quality pixel will probably be one of the lowest in the industry. At the same time, it'll still have one of the highest absolute resolutions (pixel count) available in the industry, at any price - and should be the cheapest 50MP+ system ever seen so far. And there's more, but isn't that enough?

Are you familiar with Clyde Butcher? http://www.clydebutcher.com/ I suppose you might say "what an idiot, lugging that 8 x 10 inch camera through the swamps of the Everglades!" But the first time you see one of his amazing large prints in person (probably the best print I've ever seen), you'll feel like the idiot - for not being a better photographer!

and the ability to design, make, and sell enough lenses to be viable against Canon and Nikon.

Viable against Canon and Nikon isn't really the issue - they cannot and don't want to compete there, really, at least not for a significant slice of their share. Neither designing nor selling 'enough' lenses is an issue. The issue is wedging enough Pentax-quality, modern FF lenses into a relatively tight production schedule.

The economics of FF disappear if Ricoh expands production facilities and adds employees just for FF lenses. They've been selling existing inventory for over two years.

I do to. I'm most curious to see what they do for a ~24-70/2.8 lens - when and how they cover that need. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have the *70-200 be a top-quality, fast AF Pentax design, and allow the 24-70 to be the third-party re-badge (if necessary). And while some lenses are in need of updates, I really do hope they bring a few of the FA lenses back. Certainly Nikon sees no shame in keeping older lenses around - and they've got some good stuff there!

You are right.
But also, that does not mean we should not analyse the behaviour and resulting approach of the company and its management when it comes to matters we are interested in. So far it seems Pentax brand and its management are big on show and building on anticipation in matters that are of little overall importance to its core users.
Therefore "bad father, poor child" analogy.

But MF is Pentax high-end core users. It has been that way for 46 years....

I am excited. 645Z is likely to be either a Full Frame OR a medium format at a full frame price. As in 645Z @ $1800 or something similar. I do have a strong feeling that it will be a FF though. But if I get a medium format at @1800 I wont be looking at FF any more. Also I will be able to print 80X100 prints of my not so good pictures.

I am excited. 645Z is likely to be either a Full Frame OR a medium format at a full frame price. As in 645Z @ $1800 or something similar. I do have a strong feeling that it will be a FF though. But if I get a medium format at @1800 I wont be looking at FF any more. Also I will be able to print 80X100 prints of my not so good pictures.

You are joking, aren't you?

645Z will be a crop 645 camera with a 33x44mm 50 Mpix CMOS sensor from Sony.

I think of the 645Z as the Canikon big lens at public events move. I can't afford the very expensive long lenses that both produce, and I suspect they are in many cases losses for the manufacturers. But they place the product in the public eye as professional.

They will be profitable with this offering.

The 600 f4's are not pocketable for street shooting either.

I want one. I should have picked up one of those 645 film packages with lenses that floated by on the marketplace for a reasonable price. Oh well, another thing to drool over.